If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

*Sting came first before Bart did, Sting did admit to being a fan of Natsu, even before GMG began. And their designs are not the same.
*Sting vs Natsu was no where a knock off of Luffy vs Enel as Luffy just trolled a man calling himself God.

They still have the same design. Seeing as people wanna act like Gildarts is 100% Shanks then I don't see how you can shrug off Bacchus/Ideo

Irrelevant. It was still the same set up for them to fight. Cobra and Zoro have similar set ups for their character design and what they were presented with.

Garp is Luffy's grandfather and took care of him on an off. Time of fight doesn't change the similarities.

And no, Sting was introduced as a Natsu fan boy from the st art.

Yet it didn't shift focus to the eclipse subplot until near the end of the arc where as once again, dressrosa entire focus was a bud up from the previous arc.

Yet his involvement in the events are actually noticable where as the GMG royalty involvements are almost unnoticeable.

>Same design
>The only similarities is the open shirt
>Gildarts is missing an arm
>Gildarts has the nearly identical clothing choice
>Gildarts is a very known powerful individual in his world and the MC looked up to him from childhood
>This is what you would call near identical not just having an open shirt

> Same set up
> Both are vastly different
> Pica actually fought people
> The dragon appears then disappeared nearly as fast
> The only similarities being rocks involved

Irrelevant, garp was not luffy's caretaker and was seldomly there for training.

Wow I didn't know fanboy was someone who didn't actually do anything fanboy like and was only bringing up someone's strength and bragging how they killed their parental figure and practically only once brought up anything fan related (where as Bart actually acts like a fanboy, you don't even bring up the fact that Luffy had a major role in Bart's fanboy ways as he set Bart on his journey through his own actions unlike natsu and sting which shows the vast difference)

*Sting came first before Bart did, Sting did admit to being a fan of Natsu, even before GMG began. And their designs are not the same.
*Sting vs Natsu was no where a knock off of Luffy vs Enel as Luffy just trolled a man calling himself God.

Dressrosa from the beginning was about taking the antagonist out that was set up from the previous arc with all subplots that were brought up getting delt with along side the tornament that ended up happening, GMG was about a tornament that picked up a subplot and didn't shift to it's subplot as the main plot until the near end of the arc.

No shit, who here said anything about their designs looking exactly the same and having exact same equipment? The thing that was brought up was the smirking and scared eye.

Again, saying you're a fan then not acting like a fanboy shows them both being completely different as Bart actually acts like one, no shit again, you're only proving me right about differences here.

Sting vs natsu had a guy who had an extraordinary sense that the MC couldn't get around so they had to rely on tricking that sense which both at one point involved not thinking at all to trick it completely.

The GMG arc officially started around 258, before that was even announced.

You must have missed everything that was disscussed before this as it was not myself who brought that up.

Yet it that has nothing to do with this arc at all, sting acted nothing like a fanboy this arc like being claimed so that the wild "dressrosa is a copy" has more ground to stand on when it was indeed false.

Yet he wasn't what's he's being claimed to be, just like bartolomeo, he shares nothing, the way he acts through and through shows no representation meaning that it's not applicable to say the arc shares that same character structure.

Yet there's absolutely no mention in previous arcs about the GMG arena nor the antagonist involved like I've been saying this entire time(seriously, have been reading my comments or just half assed searching for something to try and leverage your arguments on?)

There is no middle ground when one doesn't even fit the description at all

>Talks completely about the extraordinary sense
>Suddenly were talking about their individual powers

Seriously, this is getting repetitive as you're constantly leaning on shit that either nobody is talking about or you're just picking small parts and not addressing the full issue.

I enjoy both of them, and don't really find any need to compare them. FT definetly has more flaws, but OP isn't flaw-free as well. I
think that comparing "what is better" is objective anyway, since everyone will have their own opinion in the end.

Also, wrong thread.

think you meant subjective.

and no, literal standards are not subjective. some works of writing are undeniably better than others.

EXACTLY THE POINT Jesus fuck you really don't read others comments, exactly as I've been saying it's set up from the previous arc as the GMG was not AT ALL

yet again, one acts like one through and through, the other mentions being a fan and nothing more(you've literally got nothing saying otherwise, stop grasping at straws)

>Yet again, only was talking about the extraordinary sense
>Yet again doesn't read previous comments
>Ends up looking like a dumbass who can't read

Holy hell I'm done, you're one of those types that doesn't know how to read and graps straws when their arguments fall flat(even though 90% of it came from nothing of what anyone was talking about to begin with).

and no, literal standards are not subjective. some works of writing are undeniably better than others.

your enjoyment of them is the actual subjective part.

Whoops, you're right, I meant subjective. My bad.

And while you're partly right, I still think that it's hard to fully compare since standards of being a "good series" vary depending on person.

This is also the reason why people have different opinions on the quality of something, and some might think a series is "good" and others might think it's "bad".

I do agree though, that some series are undeniably better than the others.
It's just that a lot of factors play a role when comparing different works of writing, so despite there being some common standards, they can still vary for different people.

And while you're partly right, I still think that it's hard to fully compare since standards of being a "good series" vary depending on person.

This is also the reason why people have different opinions on the quality of something, and some might think a series is "good" and others might think it's "bad".

I do agree though, that some series are undeniably better than the others.
It's just that a lot of factors play a role when comparing different works of writing, so despite there being some common standards, they can still vary for different people.

and, again, no. your enjoyment of a series is completely irrelevant to whether a series is good or not.

there are certain objective standards a series must fulfill/surpass to be considered decent, good or what will you. and, while you may consider a series "good" regardless of whether they reach those standards or not, they exist, and are the ones we are meant to abide by to gauge the quality of a work.

and, again, no. your enjoyment of a series is completely irrelevant to whether a series is good or not.

there are certain objective standards a series must fulfill/surpass to be considered decent, good or what will you. and, while you may consider a series "good" regardless of whether they reach those standards or not, they exist, and are the ones we are meant to abide by to gauge the quality of a work.

Eh, whatever, don't feel like arguing with you right now.

What I meant by "partly agreeing" is that in my opinion, despite there being some objective standards, most of them are still subjective.

"Good writing" is subjective as well, despite there being some examples of good writing and bad writing.

But I rest my case.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, I take that back.

What I meant to say by "partially agreeing", is that despite there being objective standards that define "bad" and "good" writing, quite often there are situations where the quality/writing cannot be objectively defined. So despite there being clear cut examples of good/bad writing, which makes it possible to compare different series, there are moments when it's subjective.

Sorry for the text spam, I'm quite tired so I'm not thinking straight...

Juan, you are actually right. Writing is objective, what I wanted to write in my original post was enjoyment. I guess I didn't want to admit that I wrote something that stupid, so I started to talk about "some situations where writing is subjective" as an excuse, which made things even worse.